UAPA

The Supreme Court in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA restores constitutional balance in UAPA bail cases, reaffirming K.A. Najeeb and emphasizing Article 21 protections against prolonged incarceration.

In the Khalid Imam case, the Supreme Court has held that the definition of “terrorist act” under Section 15 of the UAPA is not limited to conventional violence. By stressing that Parliament used the words “by any other means,” the Court said that even non violent acts such as blocking essential supplies or disrupting public services can fall within the scope of terrorism if they are aimed at creating fear or coercing the state.

The Supreme Court has held that delay in concluding a trial under the UAPA cannot by itself become a “trump card” for bail. In refusing relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, the Court said delay only calls for heightened scrutiny, not automatic release, and reaffirmed that courts must still examine the gravity of allegations, the role of the accused, and the overall strength of the case.

The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, marking a pivotal moment for bail jurisprudence under the stringent UAPA. The Court is weighing the prosecution's claims of a "mastermind" conspiracy against the defense's argument for personal liberty after years of incarceration without a concluded trial.

On Aug 5, 2025, the Delhi HC directed separatist leader Yasin Malik to reply to the NIA’s appeal seeking to upgrade his life term to a death sentence in a terror funding case. Convicted in 2022 under UAPA and IPC, Malik had pleaded guilty but claimed a shift to non-violence. The court must now decide if his actions meet the “rarest of rare” test for capital punishment.

Exploring the NIA's power to investigate connected offences under Section 8, empowering a broader approach in national security cases.

Supreme Court upholds NIA's jurisdiction and sanction in UAPA case, reinforcing national security safeguards and procedural standards.

Supreme Court reaffirms 'Bail is the Rule' in landmark judgment, scrutinizing UAPA's application and ensuring justice is served.

Supreme Court reinforces strict bail conditions under UAPA, emphasizing the importance of prima facie evidence.